Uh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars. Spare me!

The underlying fallacy of Libertarianism is that most people are inherently stupid, selfish, and ultimately incapable of accepting the consequences that come with their "free, responsible decisions."

the only reason what Zachary says is true is because we have created that system. In the not too distant past health care was largely governed by the free market and if one person did not pay it was simply the cost of doing business. No tax subsidization involved. Back then many docs gave away their services the same way many lawyers do pro bono work today. That pretty much ended with the regulation of "access" to healthcare.

So, Zachary, you'd rather use your tax dollars to imprison non-violent drug offenders? Because that's the alternative to possibly having to pay for someone else's health care in the future: The certainty of having to pay for their incarceration, as well as the problems of corrupt law enforcement and politicians getting their share of the pie. Prisons and property forfeiture are big business.

Uh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars.

Uh, yeah, we need to be governed by death panels created by narcissistic small c communists who will tell us how much care we're going to get after we've been taxed at usurious rates to fund it.

icaUh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars. Spare me!

The underlying fallacy of Libertarianism is that most people are inherently stupid, selfish, and ultimately incapable of accepting the consequences that come with their "free, responsible decisions."

-----------

Don't forget gay sex, which is also detrimental to your health and costs taxpayers their hard earned money.

HL Mencken had concerns about the popular vote (as have many thinkers(ie,Madison) , yet Mencken feared the klan-populists (ie,early TP) as much as he did the democratic herd. More. SO, yes, ...require voting criteria--say a college degree. So much for the Smurfhouse libertarians or Byro the failed male-nurse troll.

That said, the Paul-tards' "legalize heroin" idea is as ridiculous as his libertarian economic ideas--the ideology of vegass casino operators.

So, Zachary, you'd rather use your tax dollars to imprison non-violent drug offenders? Because that's the alternative to possibly having to pay for someone else's health care in the future: The certainty of having to pay for their incarceration, as well as the problems of corrupt law enforcement and politicians getting their share of the pie. Prisons and property forfeiture are big business.

------

It depends on which drug you're talking about. With substances like meth and heroin, the harm to the user and to the surrounding society is so great that some may need to be locked up in order to deter others from using. That is a good use of tax dollars

Yeah, because everyone who gets high, or has a few drinks, or does a few lines ALWAYS gets behind the wheel of a vehicle every time they do such things and, of course, they get in accident everytime.

Oh, they don't?

That's right, risk is a relative thing and just because risk is present doesn't necessarily mean bad event X will happen.

And besides, if you want to punish people for erratic driving, go ahead. But given that we can accept the legality of alcohol and punish the related risky driving, doesn't justice, aka fairness, demand that other similar actions/behaviors be treated similarly before the law? Isn't that a component of equality before the law?

IOW, fairness, justice, etc. demands that similar behaviors be treated the same before the law. Obviously, we don't do that WRT to drugs vs. alcohol (aka a drug).

One would think this would be elementary moral reasoning. Then again, bigots aren't very good at moral reasoning and aren't very interested in justice either.

As a thought experiment, consider this question: Which side could make a better case for the existence and justification of slavery: liberals or libertarians? Religious or Athiests?

Before dismissing this question, remember that it was argued from many sides by many different people with many different values. Obviously, there is a case to be made using arguments most utilized by both the left and right. Cato lived in a society supported by slavery, as did Aristotle, Seneca, Jefferson, Rousseau, Moses, Jesus, Paul, and really all of the founders of what we consider the modern world.

What if slavery were still legal in America? Take race out of it, let's say slavery independent of the race of those enslaved were legal (the ancient Greek model). Which side would argue most for its eradication? Which for its abolution? What arguments would they make?

Too much money thrown at the Department of Homeland Security leads to the investigation of too many petty crimes...again, too many people in prison. DHS has become another self-perpetuating, self-protecting bureaucracy.

Too many politicians trying to prove that they are tough on crime leads to too many mandatory minimum sentences and a reluctance to rescind that legislation because of the need to look tough on crime. They make the laws without much thought and then find themselves boxed in when they see that the mandatory minimums are too expensive.

My hope is that the need to cut spending will weigh more heavily than the need to look tough.

As the pro-choice crowd says, "It's a woman's body and she can do with it what she wsnts." Unless, it's smoking, drinking alcohol, eating transfats, getting paid for sexual favors, being overweight, ...

No, you stupid idiots, my point was that if you want to get high or smashed, then if you drive, IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

You'll crash your car, and possibly kill someone else. That's the problem of "your" body. What you do may have greater ramifications. I'm not saying you shouldn't drink or smoke; just that at some point, it DOES have to be moderated by society once it's out in the public. That's what Mill was talking about in On Liberty. He recognizes where his "Harm Principle" ends. Apparently, some of you don't.

Your comments to me have been puerile, devoid of any intellectualism, or even really trying to reach out to understand my point. And to call me a "fucking idiot" is low, baseless, and crass.

I want to respect libertarians. But they apparently read PART of my comments, threw them out of context, and completely ignored the rest of it, just to make a point. And then slime me. Have any of you "Big L" Libertarians read Mill's On Liberty? I presume.....not.

I'm done posting here, period. Sorry Anne, but some of your posters are tools and trolls. They can't help themselves, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to that kind of bullshit.

So nice of you guys to erase my comments at the end. What, I can't defend myself from commenters that are treating me and my posts, poorly and very derogatorily? What, it's okay for them to call me a "fucking moron" but not okay for me to post a response to it? Shame on you.

Sofa...Society always works best when it has an authority system in place. The colonists here andd cut off from England learned that quickly when an authority system lead to better survival of the people who could organize and do needed work like defense.

Fortunately they were rreligious fanatics who volunteered to organize and vote for their leaders.

They used the least bad authority system which is the one that can be un-elected at a regular election.

But without a tradition of elders in authority, you end up in Lord of the Flies territory.

fafhrd1 you little wuss I called you a fucking moron because with one sarcastic sentence I demolished your entire poorly thought out premise. No one moderates here crybaby. Otherwise the vile subhuman shit stain who calls himself J for jackass would be long gone.

Liberatarians are not anarchists. How many times does that have to be said? I don't know any libertarians who would do away with traditional contract or tort law (enforced by government courts and the police power), nor who would do away with the criminal law entirely.

... why shouldn’t you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body?

The fact is we DO have the freedom to eat, drink and smoke pretty much whatever we want. The real question is why should a government or law enforcement tell us we can't? I think that is really the thrust of the argument.

Because, seriously, just about anything that we can eat, drink or smoke is quite easy to get. Even hard drugs.

Note at the end he says if you make a mistake you have to deal with that. So he is not condoning the use of drugs or putting sh*t into your body. He is saying, look, this is YOUR responsibility and if you screw up you have no one to blame but yourself.

Zachary Paul Sire said...Uh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars. Spare me!

The underlying fallacy of Libertarianism is that most people are inherently stupid, selfish, and ultimately incapable of accepting the consequences that come with their "free, responsible decisions."

10/25/11 10:58 AM

So would you also hold gays or others who practice unsafe sex accountable as well since risky behavior leads to very expensive diseases? Should poor people be forced to use birth control since they can't feed, house, educate and provide medical care for their children?

The underlying fallacy of progressive thinking which you are so arrogantly expounding is that itis nothing more than the tired elitist crap exemplified by the vanguard of the proletariat. it has been tried and it failed, repeatedly. Which is one of the measures of insanity, trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results and you once again have proven that leftist are not only crazy but evil.

Back to my own earlier poorly-worded point: Now that people are paying attention to the budget, and looking for places to cut spending...let's take the opportunity to decriminalize what we can to cut spending in the prison system. Decriminalization means fewer broken families, fewer unemployed (no prison record to get in your way).

Brian O'Connell said..."the only reason what Zachary says is true is because we have created that system."

Yup- and it goes way beyond medical care. People can make a whole range of stupid decisions today and expect the govt to take care of them. This includes welfare moms and financial institutions.

10/25/11 11:07 AM

You hit the nail on the head as to the real reason they are frothing at the mouth. They know what the next election really means and they are scared out of their wits their gravy train is coming to a halt. You can smell the fear. Its a beautiful thing. What are they going to do when they have to fend for themselves? Sink or swim, either way its a win-win solution.

J said...HL Mencken had concerns about the popular vote (as have many thinkers(ie,Madison) , yet Mencken feared the klan-populists (ie,early TP) as much as he did the democratic herd. More. SO, yes, ...require voting criteria--say a college degree. So much for the Smurfhouse libertarians or Byro the failed male-nurse troll.

That said, the Paul-tards' "legalize heroin" idea is as ridiculous as his libertarian economic ideas--the ideology of vegass casino operators.

10/25/11 11:24 AM

A college degree in what? Womyns studies or some other PC BS degree? if you are going to espouse the idea that only the truly intelligent should be allowed to vote lets leave it engineering, hard science and maths majors. Plumbers are more intelligent than journalism majors or polisci majors and certainly more than pedagogy majors.

Just leave voting to net taxpayers, something you never have been or ever will be. Problem solved.

DADvocate said...As the pro-choice crowd says, "It's a woman's body and she can do with it what she wsnts." Unless, it's smoking, drinking alcohol, eating transfats, getting paid for sexual favors, being overweight, ...

10/25/11 12:07 PM ricpic said...Paul is making the point that freedom is indissoluble. But he's fringe. So pay no attention. And anyway, Sire's taxes are at stake.

10/25/11 12:15 PM

ricpic leftys that cry about the taxpayers taking a hit are seldom actual taxpayers. They are as Dad so eloquently put it disturbed because they want you 'to pay your fair share so they can get their free share'.

Dad I really wish a Libertarian would make the argument as long as abortion is permissible the argument of my body, my choice, our responsibility becomes your body your choice and my optional child support. It takes two to get pregnant but only one to stay that way. So unless a guy agrees in advance to pay support, honey you are on your own. Your body, your choice. The entertainment value of watching the lib heads explode like in Mars Attacks! would be priceless.

Yes, when I think of GWB the first thing that pops into mind is 'socialism'. Can you imagine the gall of Bush to make it easier for destitiute elderly folks to get perscription drugs? Sheesh. What next? He should have just given them the 'liberty' of death. Right?

Whatever you are smoking even Ron Paul might not think should be legal....

Yes, when I think of GWB the first thing that pops into mind is 'socialism'. Can you imagine the gall of Bush to make it easier for destitiute elderly folks to get perscription drugs? Sheesh. What next? He should have just given them the 'liberty' of death. Right?

Let 'em die. Let god sort em out. Survival of the fittest is my motto and that of all libertarians.

What percentage of woman do you think choose to keep a child, leave the man and then demand child support? I think you have a rather skewed view of what really goes on out there. It is not only 'liberal' women who get child support or think it is a good idea.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Write the check. As long as government is redistributing income why should the foxes get a vote on who gets the chicken's eggs?

A bit arrogant to argue that the foxes should get a vote on the who gets the hen's eggs. Put your money where your mouth is and write the check or you must be one of those OWS jerks who want others to pay their fair share so you can get your free share.

Alex said... Yes, when I think of GWB the first thing that pops into mind is 'socialism'. Can you imagine the gall of Bush to make it easier for destitiute elderly folks to get perscription drugs? Sheesh. What next? He should have just given them the 'liberty' of death. Right?

Let 'em die. Let god sort em out. Survival of the fittest is my motto and that of all libertarians.

Obviously, you did not hear Paul's answer to this exact question at one of the debates. You revel in your own ignorance.

Yes, I realize Bush signed the perscription drug bill into law without finding a way to pay for it. He should have found a way to raise the revenue. Either by raising taxes or cutting back his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yes, I also know the drug bill is not limited only to the destitute. So what? The destitute benefit from it. If someone is rich enough to not need it then good for them. But, obviously, not all elderly fit into that category. Are you suggesting we should let the elderly fend for themselves? If so you would be putting yourself on the fringe of the Republican party.

Dan in Philly said...cubanbob, I was referring to Paul. I know how Obama got elected, and I wonder that Paul got elected by the same process. Notice my ambiguity...

10/25/11 2:11 PM

No ambiguity, just snark. At least Ron Paul (who is never going to get elected) isn't an affirmative action hire. Speaking of which that is the difference between a Herman Cain, a self made man and Barak Obama an affirmative action hire.

Medicare Part D is socialism. So is paying people not to work, disability benefits, food stamps, Section 8 housing, social security, Medicaid, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies, student loan subsidies, mortgage interest subsidies, and every other do-gooder scheme liberals have concocted the past 80 years. Any time the government uses it's monopoly on coercion to take from the productive and redistribute it to someone else, it's socialism. And it's always wrapped in an appeal to compassion, just as you demonstrated.

Norman Thomas, 6 time candidate for president of the Socialist Party, was prophetic when he said:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

Citing pro­ductivity losses, health expenses, and national security, she endorsed a national policy to take into account social and environmental factors in design­ing neighborhoods and schools, to "control danger­ous behaviors," and to implement "required responsibility" for individual health concerns.

What percentage of woman do you think choose to keep a child, leave the man and then demand child support? I think you have a rather skewed view of what really goes on out there. It is not only 'liberal' women who get child support or think it is a good idea.

Curious, do you pay child support?

10/25/11 1:55 PM

First I support my children, do you support yours?Second I wanted my kids and said so from the jump.

Now as long as woman want to have unfettered abortions without a mans input, then the the onus of support is theirs unless a man agrees to be responsible to begin with. He can't sue her to have the kid and he can't sue her to abort so staying pregnant is entirely her choice and hence her responsibility or is that too difficult for you to understand?

You are the one making the arguments of percentage, not me. What are those percentages? And why should the taxpayers pay for your child support?

Yes, it is socialism. So? I stand on the side America has been on for the past 80 years, which is a good combination of business and government working together to build the middle class. We are perhaps the greatest country in the history of the world because of that combination. Got a problem with that? Move to some right wing haven. If you can find one.

Jay

The same can be said to you. It's fine to be on the fringe. But you do know that you actually benefit from all things that are NOT fringe. Maybe you think we can be better if we embrace fringe policies? Keep dreaming. It won't happen. But, yes, you are right that sometimes social program cuts need to take place. Yet they won't happen with the alacrity you so desire.

"Uh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars. Spare me!

The underlying fallacy of Libertarianism is..."

Other people?

Yes, indeed, when we all are forced to pick up the tab for other people's behavior, then their behavior becomes our legitimate concern.

Trying to explain this is like trying to bail the ocean. The control is a natural and inevitable consequence of all of those programs that so many people think are moral necessities. National health care means that the government can and *will* decide what you should eat and how fat you can be, if you can smoke, etc. It might well decide how many kids you can have or if unprotected sex becomes a crime.

Whoever has responsibility for you, will also have authority over you.

People who want government to take care of them believe, somehow, that their comfort and their choices will never be out of line with the entity that has authority over the minutia of their daily life.

1. Regulation of the importation of dangerous chemicals are clearly enumerated Federal powers.1.a Legislative action informed by science classifies chemicals/plants as dangerous/noxious.1.b Many drugs/chemicals/plants have no valid medicinal purpose and are dangerously addictive and destructive: alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, opium derivatives.2. States are empowered to regulate the manufacture and sale of dangerous chemicals and noxious weeds (if they so choose).3. Congress is empowered by the (dormant?) Commerce clause to establish the conditions under which one State can allow the manufacture and sale of controlled substances, while another neighbor State will not allow them.4. Fools for voters have allowed Federal and State governments to punish users of drugs, rather than forcing the governments to do their enumerated jobs and regulate the importation, manufacture, and sale of controlled substances.4.a The governments have perverse incentives to maintain a permanent client base, i.e. prisoners.4.b Once the borders are shut down, and drugs are scarce and expensive, the bureaucracy will shrink. Can't have that!

Analysis in terms of divergences between private and social products [and costs] concentrates attention on particular deficiencies in the system and tends to nourish the belief that any measure which will remove the deficiency is necessarily desirable. It diverts attention from those other changes in the system which are inevitably associated with the corrective measure, changes which may well produce more harm than the original deficiency. In the preceding sections of this article, we have seen many examples of this.But it is not necessary to approach the problem in this way...

In this article, the analysis has been confined, as is usual in this part of economics, to comparisons of the value of production, as measured by the market. But it is, of course, desirable that the choice between different social arrangements for the solution of economic problems should be carried out in broader terms than this and that the total effect of these arrangements in all spheres of life should be taken into account. As Frank H. Knight has so often emphasized, problems of welfare economics must ultimately dissolve into a study of aesthetics and morals.

Uh, yeah, do what you want to your "own" body, including not buying health insurance to protect your "own" body, so that when you get sick from all the eating/drinking/smoking, you go to the hospital for medical care subsidized by my tax dollars. Spare me!

So you're fine with laws concerning eating unhealthy foods and smoking? How would you feel about laws against unsafe sex practices? Or laws against risky outdoor activities? Alcohol does a lot of damage to health and imposes a lot of health-care costs, so can we infer that you'd be OK with bringing back prohibition? A lot of people get in trouble going out late at night--they are victims of crimes, or sometimes get in fights, or have one-night stands, all of which may impair their health. So could curfews be justified to prevent risky 'clubbing' behavior and keep health care costs down?

Where are the limits? Why do you think it's OK for government to dictate my diet, but not these other kinds of choices?

"Dad I really wish a Libertarian would make the argument as long as abortion is permissible the argument of my body, my choice, our responsibility becomes your body your choice and my optional child support. It takes two to get pregnant but only one to stay that way. So unless a guy agrees in advance to pay support, honey you are on your own. Your body, your choice."

I've been making that argument for years.

I suppose there isn't anyone prominent making it or there would be an outcry.

It IS the only just and fair answer concerning reproductive responsibility, however.

You smoke. i drink.Your vice has a byproduct. Mine too.Would you like if i stand on a chair a piss over you: your face, your hair, your clothes?Well, when you smoke you do the same.Cigarretes and drugs have consecuences for third parties that are not internalized. And dont come with the preposterous Coase´s theorem.

"... why shouldn’t you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body?"

Because some men just want to see the world burn. Some men just want to thieve and steal through forfeitures to benefit their own ridiculous employment. Some men just want to subjugate their fellow man into government cages.

On the other hand, some men just want you to be free to make your own decisions and live the your consequences.

If there aren't any moderators, there should be. I've been around enough forum boards to know that it's a good idea. And yes, it's private property, owned by Althouse (and/or her server/webmaster), so if she wanted to do it, she could.

Thanks for trying, Prarie; same goes for you, T-Man (although I do take umbrage at your defensive tone, which I think is wholly unwarranted).

And as for you, "Paul": I have a great life and I've actually bothered to read intellectual history and theory. You haven't, and have chosen the path of invective and Cartman-esque insults. Please. Spare me your bullshit. You sir, to quote Shakespeare, are an ass.

You're clearly an angry person, and have a shitty life. I win at the game of life. I'll piss on your grave when you die.

And as for libertarians who haven't read On Liberty: Go. Read. It. Ignore what Ron Paul writes, and read what your intellectual founder wrote (also read John Locke's works on the "social contract" andEdmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" on conservatism).

Anyways, I bid adieu to those who want a real intellectual conversation; and I give a whole hearted "fuck you" to those of you who just want to rant.

They are doing this as private companies without any government imput.

Perhaps you need to study the Constitution and see what it allows the government to do and not do. Hint: Government is not allowed to d a lot of things private companies and individuals are allowed to do.

The underlying fallacy of Libertarianism is that most people are inherently stupid, selfish, and ultimately incapable of accepting the consequences that come with their "free, responsible decisions."

The funny thing is that you think you've spotted a flaw in libertarianism, but you've actually identified the primary flaw of modern liberalism -- specifically, the idea that it is possible for individual liberty and a welfare state to co-exist over the long term.

See, from a libertarian it should work like this: you screwed around, spent all your money on greasy food instead of medical insurance, and had a heart attack? You go to the hospital with no means of paying? Well, either the hospital's owners take pity on you and offer charity... or you don't get treated. Either way, the government isn't paying a dime -- and either way, it doesn't make a lick of difference what YOU find "acceptable".

It is liberalism that incorrectly believes it is possible to socialize the costs of bad decisions while still leaving people free to live their own lives. That's why every year sees liberals proposing new areas of human existence that should be subject to government management, to prevent people from making bad choices -- because ultimately they had to choose between comfort and freedom, and they picked comfort. The lone holdout is sex, but that'll fall in the end, too. After all, if you have sex you might cause a pregnancy and leave society on the hook for paying for the child. :)

You're an insult not only to English language but to Reason itself, Byro-yid. Sort of how yr garbage mama was an insult to womanhood as a whole. Heh heh.Mencken --sort of like a Descartes to yr peasant brain, Bellami.

It is liberalism that incorrectly believes it is possible to socialize the costs of bad decisions while still leaving people free to live their own lives.

What happened when Ayn Rand got lung cancer after decades of smoking, and found herself broke? She grabs SS and Medicare when she needed them. Healthcare programs devised by liberals. Like most if not all libertarians, Rand was hypocritical and rotten to the core.

Synovathey can't *criminalize* your behavior. The government can, and will.

Yes, but under what situation would they criminalize being overweight? Of course laws have been passed because of drinking and smoking in the wrong places [businesses do the same] but besides who wants people smoking in a movie theatre or drinking alcohol in a car, etc?

Anyway, a small fringe wants to 'nationize' healthcare so it is a moot point. What the rest of us want is affordable healthcare and accountability. Some think we can get there with some government help. Some think the free market will bring that about. It's not a new argument and it will continue.

Blame the lawyers, I guess.

DADvocate

You misread or misundestood my comment. But I know what you are saying. If a business punishes someone for bad behavior that is okay but if the gov't punishes someone then that is wrong because a gov't has all power and authority which can never be revoked. Fear of gov't....

Cigarretes and drugs have consecuences for third parties that are not internalized.

If you understood Coase you'd know why you couldn't possibly know either of these things.

Your next sentence...

And dont come with the preposterous Coase´s theorem.

demonstrates clearly that you don't understand Coase at all.

Now, you don't need to understand Coase's very subtle argument to live a full and productive life, so it's not a big deal. However, you do need to realize that you don't understand Coase in order to avoid posting baseless comments about externalities.

Like most if not all libertarians, Rand was hypocritical and rotten to the core.

It might be hypocritical for someone to support social-welfare programs and call himself a strict libertarian--or else just a bit odd. It would assuredly have been hypocritical for Rand to ask people to help her out after she got sick.

But it ain't hypocritical to accept a payout from a program you were forced to participate in.

Isn't it a good thing the insurance companies will increase your premium for bad behavior? I thought conservatives were for accountability

Yes it is. If you are a higher risk of making claims, then you pay more. Lower risk, healthier people, pay less. If you don't want to pay anything for insurance premiums to a company, then you are "self insuring" and pay for all of the claims out of your own pocket. This is the definition of insurance.

Obama Care is the exact opposite of insurance in that the program eliminates the categories of risk and mandates the same coverage for everyone at the same cost. No accountability for those who lead poor lifestyles: eating, smoking, drinking etc.

And Synova has it right. When you let the government take control of aspects of your life, like health care for everyone, you have given up the right to control your own body.

Sending random billions and aid to random countrys when we are falling apart at the seams. Oh look we have no more military and our nuclear weapons are disarmed, but we just built the fucking muslim brotherhood new condos and a gym, awsome.

What happened when Ayn Rand got lung cancer after decades of smoking, and found herself broke? She grabs SS and Medicare when she needed them.

I'm always amused when you folks cite that little fact. I have to wonder what you think it proves.

There is no conflict between thinking both "the government should not provide this program" and "since the government DOES provide this program, I'll take advantage of it". Refusing to take advantage of a government benefit you've already been taxed for isn't libertarian -- it is masochistic.

Revenant - "There is no conflict between thinking both "the government should not provide this program" and "since the government DOES provide this program, I'll take advantage of it"."

Well, there certainly is a "conflict" between telling everybody who will listen that the programs should be eliminated or not in force...but then using the services when you feel YOU yourself need them.

It's one thing to merely say the services should not be provided, while also NOT taking advantages of those same services, unlike conservatives who scream to high heaven about Medicare, Medicaid and other "socialized" services, yet take full advantage when it suits them.

And if one is born with or inherits a specific malady, they should just buck up and handle things on their own, regardless of their financial situation...or for that matter if they can even hold a job because of such a problem?

Is that really what you think?

*And by the way, insurance companies already deal with "lifestyle" choices in their premiums.

Many of you that are commenting are assuming that drug laws actually do something. In fact, they do very little to alter the illicit use of drugs. Prior to the initiation of drug laws in 1913, the use rate was about 10-20%, that has not changed. What is occurring is that law enforcement realizes the loss of the war on drugs so they have taken the battle to those who legally use them and stay in the system. In other words, the people with chronic pain syndromes who needs narcotics to function. The legal people are making their lives hell, yet illegal drugs are readily available. Now there is a cost to society for people using illegal drugs that is actually greater than the cost if we allowed free use of all drugs. The cost is that many disease (AIDS, hep C, bacterial endocarditis) are kept alive and well as a result of illegal drugs and their use. In addition, drug overdose and other issues are worse. Many nations have freer laws than we do and no adverse consequences. We need to legalize all drugs and leave people alone. Consider the savings in tax money and the fact that we would no longer be subsidizing the cartels, gangs, terrorist, etc.

unlike conservatives who scream to high heaven about Medicare, Medicaid and other "socialized" services, yet take full advantage when it suits them.

Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. Medicare is a service/product that I have been forced to pay for for the last 45 years. Every paycheck some of MY money and some of my employer's money went into the program.

Medicaid is a welfare program and people who haven't paid and who often are not even citizens or taxpayers at all, get to dip into the program.

Social Security also is a program that I have been forced to pay into and my employers have been forced to pay into. SSI is the welfare arm for those who also 'generally' have not paid into the program.

So unless you want to give me back ALL the money over these last 45 years that I have had extorted from me and from my employers, PLUS the compounded interest that I might have earned over those years.... I figure you owe me about $450,000 ($5000 avg pmt, 45 yrs,3%annual interest+future value)....DAMNED right I'm going to collect and use the services when it comes time. Or.....give me my money.

Plus, since I will STILL be working after 65, I'll still be paying into the system.....both sides as employer and employee.

*And by the way, insurance companies already deal with "lifestyle" choices in their premiums.

Thank you for repeating what I have already stated.

So you feel that disease is caused by "lifestyle?"

Many are. Diabetes, liver problems, heart disease, certain cancers.

And if one is born with or inherits a specific malady, they should just buck up and handle things on their own, regardless of their financial situation...or for that matter if they can even hold a job because of such a problem?Is that really what you think?

I think that they are un-insurable at any price.

I think that these are the situations that 'charity and charitable organizations' are meant to handle. Not the government, through Medicaid and SSI and certainly not by coercing businesses to go broke covering them.

Well, there certainly is a "conflict" between telling everybody who will listen that the programs should be eliminated or not in force...but then using the services when you feel YOU yourself need them.

You tell your wife you think the family should save money at Thanksgiving by taking the bus to your in-laws' place instead of flying. Your wife then goes out and buys non-refundable airplane tickets.

According to you and garage, there are two options:

1. Use the tickets, in which case you're a hypocrite.

2. Tear up the tickets and take the bus anyway, in which case you have Done the Right Thing.

That's a retarded way of looking at the world. Once you've paid for something you might as well take advantage of it, even if you didn't want to pay for it in the first place.

Wouldn't it be much much better to say, "Well you can, keep your retirement and your so-called Social Security, big city turn me loose and set me free!"

Heck yeah. If I had been given that option about 35 years ago, I would have jumped at it.

If I were young now I would demand that option.

Bean counting tells us that if you don't use the SS and Medicare funds as a government piggy bank to pay for votes and give away as party favors and had used a halfway decent investment strategy, there would be more than enough to give people my age the option.

Give me my money or stay in the program. Given that I can invest my money better than the government and can control my costs better than the government...I'll take the lump sum.

You tax paying younger people should jump at the opportunity to give me my money back and get me off of your back.

"Well, there certainly is a "conflict" between telling everybody who will listen that the programs should be eliminated or not in force...but then using the services when you feel YOU yourself need them."

Not if you were forced to pay for them.

The things that we chose for the government to take-over from us have consequences. It changes our expectations and behavior. And rightly so. Doing otherwise is living in a fantasy world and that only goes so far. You've paid into the system, if you like it or not, so why shouldn't grandma go to the State to take care of her instead of to her family? It's rational to take advantage when you've paid, but see what is there and why. Don't be willfully blind.

We live in the world we live in. Are we then prohibited from rationally examining it?

Rand and the objectivists promoted libertarian ideas, Nurse Byro-Rev.,stoner-troll. Like cut taxes, end entitlements, and legalize dope. Then I doubt youve made it through the Atlas Shrugged wiki. Even Aynnie at times dissed the US Military (and protested "Nam at least once).

Rand may have been a skanky, greedy POS but not quite quite the tea-bag or neo-con princess that some take her to be (including you, dreck).

Mumbling---why, it's Byro-flunkie, in his dress and make up, pretending to be.."Mary" a pseudo-Randian. You forgot somethin'--even Miss Rand attempted to justify her views at times. Not just...no more social security because Byro-Mary says so--not a reason (in fact most Americans support SS and even HC, dreck).

Friends are exhausting their net worth for the 35% possibility that their 25 year old son will be cured, permanently, of his addiction to heroin.

Choosing what to do with one's own body, as Libertarians want, includes the legalization of drugs including heroin. That is a nonsensical idea.

Shouldn't your friends be pushing for their son to be imprisoned for his crimes? After all -- as you so astutely pointed out -- the idea that a person should NOT be imprisoned for taking heroin is pure nonsense.

Well that's a lovely little elitist attitude you've got there, Mary Antoinette. And guess where, in a democracy, that holier-than-thou stuff leaves snooty shits like you? Beheaded. And with your loser politicians having their asses handed to them as they're voted out of office.

Guess what also works? Democracy. If the only way you can govern is by telling increasing numbers of people that they deserve a sorry lot in life, then the system's fucked up and deserves upending. Let's just call it "tough love" for snobby jerk-offs.

"Would you be willing to use the resources of government to discourage people from caring about their fellow citizens?

Can't have a strong country without strong, strapping, stubborn individualists, right?"

And yet, that's the end result of what the Blues insist that we do. (And most of the Reds as well... though the colors seem oddly transposed.)

Government taking over doesn't encourage people to care, it discourages them because the "care" becomes institutionally impersonal. The caring becomes an impersonal thing. It's not that we care more. We care far less. It's just easier to care when you can reduce your own responsibility by forcing everyone else to pay.

If someone set out on purpose to make people apathetic to the plight of those around them, they couldn't chose a better strategy than making charity a government responsibility.

It's the exact opposite of being elite in fact, living within one's means. Try it sometime?

Only when the bankers who own your whorish politicians do the same.

But isn't it cute that they can co-opt another peon like you to do their bidding? Because for you to refuse such a mission would deny you a sense of pride that clearly outclasses your station.

How do you make your meager living, anyway, Mary A. - if you don't mind me asking, O Great and Responsible One?

Someone with your measure of bravado had better be a big-ass banker or more. But the poor quality of thought and sentiment that you put into what you write here and on your blog leaves me doubtful of that.

But kudos on that ego. I'm sure your own internal audience of one is cheering you on loudly.

You speak like someone with all the attitude of a high society trophy wife and all the poverty of a soccer mom. Must be one hell of a combination.

"Friends are exhausting their net worth for the 35% possibility that their 25 year old son will be cured, permanently, of his addiction to heroin."

I can't even imagine how heart rending this must be for them. Next to watching a loved one die slowly of a chance disease, watching them self-destruct must be far worse.

That said...

"Choosing what to do with one's own body, as Libertarians want, includes the legalization of drugs including heroin. That is a nonsensical idea."

Heroin IS illegal. Your friend's son took it anyway.

If we lose the notion that legality implies that an activity is acceptable and allow strong social prohibition... there is no real reason to think that more people will be stupid or desperate enough to get into drugs like heroin than do now when it's all illegal. Bringing it into the light *might* mean earlier intervention. It might mean that the network of pushers have little to no profit incentive.

I've sacrificed, lost, gotten back up, chosen again, and worked hard. If you sat on your ass and whined while I was out there bettering my situation, oh well. Don't think it makes me want to help you any more though. I don't, and generally view the whiners as spoiled children.

This doesn't have a thing to do with you, Queen Marie. So stop flattering yourself.

This is about people much richer than you rigging the system in a way that ruins the economy, the political system and the entire social contract, and those of us who, rich as they are or not (and you're clearly not, so speak for yourself), are tired of the warped morality and lack of opportunity that breeds. The richest among us agree. We see no need to inflate the pride of the likes of you in order to make opportunity harder for everyone else, and to make the richest dependent upon the government. You seem to hate welfare for the poor, while advocating it for those among us with any privilege.

Really, I'm a pampered trust fund baby, with a billionair banker husband (my third if you must know) and his pampered offspring, by me, because I saw early on in life, my looks were the ticket to my success.

No. But you'd like to think your opinion matters as much as theirs does.

Guess what? It doesn't.

Keep sweating and laboring away in obscurity. No one cares about your pride. It's empty.

What is up with the machine-gun responses? Do you actually bother to think about what someone says before returning volley?

There's no acceptance necessary, Marie. As I said, no one cares about you. The Tea Party has moved on and given way to something less irrational. Why not try something with oomph if not traction, like birtherism?

Synova @9:15: If someone set out on purpose to make people apathetic to the plight of those around them, they couldn't chose a better strategy than making charity a government responsibility.

This^100.

The British Government was trying to do exactly that 175 years ago, swayed by the intellectual vanguard's mistaken views:

For Victorians, the most objectionable implication of Malthus's law was that charity might actually increase the suffering it was intended to ease--a direct challenge to Christ's injunction to "love thy neighbor as thyself." In fact, Malthus was extremely critical of the traditional English welfare system....Conservative and liberal taxpayers alike found Malthus's argument so persuasive that Parliament passed, virtually without opposition, a new Poor Law in 1834 that effectively restricted public relief to those who agreed to become inmates of parish workhouses.

--Sylvia Nasar, Grand Pursuit (p. 6)

It seems that there's never been a shortage of advanced thinkers eager to displace private charitable activity with the stultifying pseudo-concern of the state.

You talk about working hard in one breath and then not breaking a sweat in another. I'm sure all the actually productive people, who contribute something more useful to this economy than you do, are interested in using as a prototype for the robots they are poised to replace you with. Their programming doesn't require your misplaced pride.

I'd say read more and talk less, but clearly that goes against your robotic instincts. The internets must be a great veil for the identity behind all the stupid things you say here, that would be revealed in real life.

Mary, you're a boring nobody. Your thoughts are uninteresting. No one cares about you. If you had an ounce of humanity, someone might, but you don't. Your husband must be a pretty mediocre person, as well.

That's too bad, but those are your choices and your lot in life. I don't knock them but neither do I think there is any praise, or even interest, to be deserved by them.

I've clicked on your blog link, obviously. There's nothing there. Your "thoughts", if you can even call them that, are rote. You are basically an ego machine. You are useless to the political process, as well as to general social intercourse, and probably to human morality, as well.

And yet, you obsessively respond to every damn comment I post. Why is that?

That fixation you have says much more about you than it does me. It also says something less flattering about yourself than you believe it does.

"Your blog does not allow comments, mine does - and that capacity is used."

Um ... congratulations?If you're as happy with your blog as I am with mine, I'm sure one day you'll find the inner peace you seem to be studying me for...

Secret is in being yourself. Be for real. Keep it genuine, and don't get yourself trapped, like the poor fellas stuck in Madison say, who haven't yet realized that no free men, no working men, no genuine men of any kind of caliber would move there for more than a temporary stretch.

You can tease em for a while, you know -- make work kinda jobs. But after awhile, you kinda notice. And get out, if you're wise, and not too trapped yet.